145 comments:

So the Black President will take to the air to endorse gay marriage with a black interviewer in tow to make all those "bigoted" black voters who voted against SSM marriage yesterday feel more comfortable.

If people are going to vote either for or against Barry for social reasons I would argue they are clinically insane at this point and therefore beyond reason so this should have little impact on the election.

Obama will today record an interview that will lay bare his position on gay marriage, and people on both sides of the issue rightly see this as a question of character. What will he do?

I predict, given the above, that he will flail. Probably say something like "this is a painful issue that cuts across cultural and religious questions for many Americans, and we need to allow the American people to speak and choose their positions on it."

Obama can stay un-evolved and not lose a single vote from the left because of it. I also don't think many would vote against him just because he does "evolve" on the issue. It's just not as important as his people think it is to this election.

"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down."

"Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment."

"The Church’s doctrine is based on love. We believe that our purpose in life is to learn, grow and develop, and that God’s unreserved love enables each of us to reach our potential. None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves."

If that is what you call bigotry, how would you define difference of opinion?

Obama loves the oppressed gay men and women and he really means it. He is not lying this time. He just wants them to take the deal he offered the Russians that he will surrender AFTER the election. Ok? It's not easy to fool all of the People all of the time.

It is funny to say it, but Obama has intentionally created an economic jobless recovery which means the Gays need marriage more than ever so two can live together as cheaply as one, like they people had to do during FDR's 1930s.

Obama could start with announcing he doesn't believe in a supreme creator being/God, that he would legalize drugs, and end overseas military engagements. Then he could say that his position on gay marriage is just that it's too queer for him to accept. I would believe he was telling the truth if this is what he said.

"More people is good. It pays for old people and it correlates strongly -- perfectly, really -- with economic growth over all of human history.

If giving people a rebate for having children increases the number of children, that's awesome."-----------You're assuming those new mouths will be net postitives: = educated, workers, healthy and productive contributors...

If they need to be fed breakfast, lunch and dinner on the taxpayer dime, plus their medical costs, then don't get a decent enough education to work and pay taxes ... I'd just as soon predict their lives as potential pre-diabetics will cost more than they contribute to the future economy. Call me a realist.

Of course, not YOUR kid. Your kid is going to grow up and cure cancer, I'm sure...

His supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) knew this was where he was going, and generally gave him a pass. Except for the most vocal, single-issue gay rights lobby types who have a lot of influence and money on the Dem side.

Obama was going to do this after the election. He was just forced to speed it up. (If he actually announces a change. He could very well continue try the wink-wink approach. The media's cool with that.)

Maybe the jokes are getting to him. The Daily Show and the Onion, who are more comfortable with humor aimed at familiar, conservative targets, have been making digs. He's not used to that.

Well, as with "progress", evolution is, apparently, also ambiguous. Not by natural but by artificial standards.

It's interesting to observe competing interests butting heads. I wonder how dreamers of instant gratification without consequence and the elite who enjoy exploiting them would process their complaints if the Christian majority was replaced with a Muslim majority or another group which does not tolerate this particular deviant behavior.

I'm wondering if the right is being suckered on this and a lot of other things.

Here's my theory:

1. Obama knows that he needs to talk about anything but the economy and Obamacare.

2. Regular 'old school' campaigning would have him bring up a bunch of other topics.

3. But these guys are advanced weasels. Just bringing up other topics still enables your opponent to pound you for not wanting to talk about the only issue.

4. So the advanced weasel stages fights within its own coalition - the advanced form of changing the topic.

5. Your opponent, seeing the schism (the feigned one, that is), is emboldened to join in the conversation on the agreeable side.

6. The opponent is thereby drawn in, time wasted, and the key topics neglected. The press sucks all the oxygen out of the room covering this fake controversy and there is not time for the pressing issue.

Quayle -- You are completely, totally wrong. This goofy speech is an attempt to fix Obama's bungling of an issue raised because of a recent ballot initiative in North Carolina. Ballot initiatives are not instantaneous, as you most assuredly know. A lot of money and effort goes into setting up a statewide vote, and it takes considerable time.

There's no conspiracy. Obama is responding to events. And fucking up in grand, hilarious fashion.

Because a cornerstone of liberal worldview is disdain for conservatives, middle class, "flyover country" citizens. Liberals have an agenda that satisfies/excites urban elites. They have learned from experience that their agenda doesn't win votes, so they have accepted that for a Democrat to win office, they must conceal their true views and agenda.

That's why liberals never get punished in elections for flip-flopping...they trust that any liberal is a True Believer in Liberal Ideology, and anything different is just fooling the people too stupid to vote the "correct" way, i.e., for liberals.

It's for their own good, don'tcha know?

The flip side of it is criticizing conservative opponents for views they give a pass to with their political allies (like blacks' and religious Hispanics' views of gay marriage).

Power is the goal, so they can control the flow of money and divert it to their cronies and themselves.

The MSM wants to help O win re-election. But so far everything the O campaign has given them to work with-- has turned to crap.

A "historic" "unprecedented" "gutsy" "decision"-- now you're talking! All that cable-news-juicy controversy, all the pundits punditing their hearts out. This could easily suck up all the MSM oxygen for a good long while.

Bad economic news and Romney's message on the economy and (let's not forget) Romney's introduction of himself to the general electorate... marginalized.

Evolution is highly overrated. Look at giraffes, anteaters,and mosquitoes. Obams has now fully evolvced into support of gay marriage. His fully evolved position is as aerodynmaically sound as the tail feathers on a peacock.

The decision is to proceed with gay marriage. The timing, operational decision making and control are in David Axelrod's hands. The approval is provided on the polling and donor data presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration

I am going to be very disappointed if I do o't see a full on evolution, and when I do see it I will jump up and cheer and dance over the balcony and yell, "Horray horray callooh callay oh frabjous day!" And if I do not see a full on evolution then I will slam myself down on the floor, cross my arms, and fiercely frown.

You do know that there is a threshold needed for a cicilization to exist, right?

Every can't be poet's, or Afro-American studies professors. You need people to grew your food, haul your garbage away, build your house. If your civilization doesn't produce enough of them itself, it imports them. Then that civilization ceases to exist anymore. It is an immutable fact of history.

But surely you know this. Surely you don't believe that population bomb non-sense? If you do, you must believe in AGW, and that DDT is bad.

I wish Romney had outflanked him and come out for same sex marriage about an hour before Obama did. Those 5 million voters that voted for Obama in 2008 that Romney needs to convince to vote for him in 2012 are 90% in favor of it. It would have been good politics.

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

It was a kiss to the Religious Right, who has had far more influence in the Conservative movement than ever thought. You fiscal conservatives have been stabbed in the back.

Obama was forced to man up and say he was for it. Excellent. Now he is going to get the gay vote he was going to get anyway and perhaps a lot of independent votes from rich people who are unconcerned about the economy and who vote social issues. Now we can spend the next few months arguing about this as a matter of great national concern, as a real top of the list problem. It certainly has worked out well for the Anglicans and Episcopalians so why not for America.

Romney should come out in favor as well but note that gay marriage won't be marriage marriage.

Leftists will never, ever be able to afford the society that will come of bad homes, even were Obamacare to be abolished.

Conservatives know that $1's worth of social mores regarding the family will result in tens of thousands of dollars saved in remedial social programs trying to care for and fix (or lock up) the products of failed homes.

AllieOOp wrote: Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

And so poof--just like that, Julia is justified, Walker looses next month, and Obama wins in November.

Well, good for him, but I'm far more inclined to laugh at him rather than cheer him on. Is this really the same guy who campaigned in 2008? How can anyone watch something like this unfold and not howl in laughter at how nakedly political and clumsy is Obama's "evolution"?

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

It was a kiss to the Religious Right, who has had far more influence in the Conservative movement than ever thought. You fiscal conservatives have been stabbed in the back.

Now it's come back tobite them in the butt.

What?

You really believe this?

What "social issues" legislation by conservatives in the House caused Sebelius to mandate the Catholic Church must provide contraception?

Besides, Romney seems to be doing quite well addressing in 1-2 sentences the b.s. social issue smoke screens the Obama team is putting up, and then turning the topic to the economy.

Let's test whose spin is correct:If the liberals are winning on women's and gay rights, would you expect that an incumbent President who has plenty of cash in his warchest due to not fighting through a primary battle would be ahead of his opponent, tied, behind, or losing even when faced with two conservative candidates splitting the conservative vote?

Let's not kid ourselves. This is about marriage more that is about orientation. Conservatives are losing the battle to save marriage. Period. This is just another nail in the coffin. Not that gay couples themselves are a threat, but that dwindling opposition to gay marriage highlights the fact the more people just don't care enough to oppose it.

People don't oppose gay marriage for the same reason they didn't oppose the rise in fatherless children: they just don't think any of it matters. Being able to say "I was on the right side of history!" is just a fringe benefit of thier apathy.

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

Somebody get Oop away from the Mary Jane.

The margin by which Romney may - and I do mean, may - be losing on women, is pretty much the same one he's winning with men, so you've got the same wash there Reagan had and we all know how badly he did.

As for "gay rights", the Demos are so desperate now, they have to risk the black and Hispanic votes to pander to 1.3% of the population.

More to the point, abortion is no longer as popular since ultrasound became widespread. As a "nurse", Oop ought to know that.

More Lefty FUD because the economy is going South and all their other misdirections have blown up in their faces.

Well, lefties, here is the next step for you. You must now ask our leader what his opinion matters, what does he propose to do about the burning issue of gay marriage. Does he propose to make it a plank in his reelection platform? Does he intend to propose a Constitutional Amendment to make gay marriage a true right that the yahoos and rednecks can't override. Or is this just his opinion? What work does he propose to undertake to make his opinion mean anything at all?

It's the Mormon church's stance on homosexuality that is the issue, not that Romney is a Mormon. Who cares what religion he is if he has the ability to disconnect himself from is church's position on issues he will have to deal with as POTUS.

I'll go one further: Kennedy was able to distance himself from quite few commandments held by many other faiths. His brother Ted evolved that stance even further. But those were personal choices-- without out leadership consequences (we hoped).

It's the Mormon church's stance on homosexuality that is the issue, not that Romney is a Mormon. Who cares what religion he is if he has the ability to disconnect himself from is church's position on issues he will have to deal with as POTUS.

Ah, I get it. People have the freedom of worship, except for, you know, -those kinds-. I'm picking up what you are putting down. I am nodding to your wink. Some kinds of worship just... aren't tolerated in government. Some freedoms just shouldn't be allowed to be expressed by people, if they want to be able to have -other- freedoms. Wink, wink.

Playing grievance groups like a Stradivarius, or maybe more like a bathtub band.

Speaking of expensive fiddles. You noticed yesterday when Huguette Clark came up that she was given a Stradivarius so famous it is named La Pucelle, the virgin, when you know the word for virgin is vierge so what kind of virgin is pucelle?

Joan of Arc called herself la Pucelle d'Orléans to emphasize she is envoy from God and not just a regular witch. The English being enemies would naturally change that perversely to its opposite, la Putain d'Orléans. The voiced bilabial plosive "pu" invites it when emphasized like that in the raucous London theater. So now the idea cloud around the word pucelle abuts the idea cloud around the word putain, although in France the word pucelle does contain the idea of whore, it still does a little bit sound to some people like something besmirched, through Shakespeare, and I suppose Voltaire too. That is my theory.

And that is how I feel about an amazing instrument falling into the hands of someone so ungifted as Huguette Clark for forty-five years.

And because Romney is such a good Mormon, he doesn't have what it takes to be POTUS. He has to be able to separate himself from his church, when it comes to being the leader of a nation

That is such bigoted bullshit.

I know many Mormons who are very devoted to their church and their faith who have businesses that cater to all types of customers. Never do they bring their religion or ideology into the business place or allow it to interfere with the function of their businesses.

And DBQ, it's wonderful that the Mormons we all know can do this, Romney appears not to be able to do this, partially because he is a good Mormon, partially because he must answer to the Religious Right, who don't trust him or Mormonism to begin with.

I don't care what religion he is, he has to have the capacity to disengage himself from his religion as President of a SECULAR nation

And you know that he doesn't have that capacity because......he is a Mormon? You have some evidence that Romney has made decisions based on his religion?

How about a Muslim. Can that person disengage himself from his religion. A Baptist? Catholic? Atheist?

Perhaps we should insist that all politicians have no religious beliefs of any kind. Wait....I think I remember something about not discrimination on the basis of religion.......I'm sure that there wasn't an "except for Mormons" clause there.

I guess we will see how many voters understand this concept in November, I suspect it's more than you think.

The Republican Party has made a fatal error by letting themselves be dictated to by the Relgious Right.

Tea Partiers should've stuck to their "guns" and not let themselves be influenced by the RR. All the Fiscal Conservatives I know, and I know MANY, I live in Waukesha County the heart of Conservatism in Wisconsin, are furious that the Republican Party has made such poor choices by kowtowing to the agenda of the RR.

My conservative friends and family are mostly social liberals, so they are what I base my observations on.

Also, it would be great if Obama could look beyond his religion to stop using it as a bludgeon to increase spending by the state on pseudo-charitable endeavors with high overheads and inefficient delivery systems.

It's a shame he is so tied to his religion he can't see how it is causing him to manage the country poorly.

-- How those Blue Dogs doing? Also, on the right? Our emerging political activist group endangering our establishment is the Tea Party. You might know them for their fairly strict fiscal policy stance without giving a damn about social issues. As a bonus, they don't poo on cop cars.

"Maybe if they come out strongly against these ultra social conservative types they may still be able to save their credibility."

-- You mean like Libertarians have (who also tend to fall in with the R-crowd)? How much do you actually know about the intellectual, theory and internal debate that goes on within the other side's tents?

The Tea Party got sucked into the RR issues too, it's too bad, because they were on the right track for a while.

Maybe if they come out strongly against these ultra social conservative types they may still be able to save their credibility.

Just how many Tea Party meetings have you been to lately? Or do you get ALL of your information from MSNBC and the supermarket tabloids.

At no meeting or gathering that I have ever been at, does the topic of abortion, gay marriage or other social idiocies come up. People are concerned about taxes, big government, lack of attention to the Constitution and generally local political issues.

The Tea Parties that I have attended are focused on getting in candidates at the local and State level and if possible (not in California however) Federal positions.

You might need to get out more and not believe everything that you read from the MSM.

DBQ, as a I said, I live in Waukesha County, many of the Conservatives here belong to the Tea Party, about half of them got "religion" after getting involved with one of the Tea Party groups that were also fundamentalist evangelicals.

Do you deny that the Tea Party had disagreements as to this very issue and ended up forming a couple different Tea Party factions?

I glean my information from my neighbors, friends and relatives that are conservatives that live right here in Waukesha County. We have a very active social circle here in my area and we are able to get along very well by respecting each others opinions and by keeping an open mind. As I said most are social liberals, fiscal conservatives.

And Chickenlittle, the reason they are pissed off is because they feel that by becoming such a small tent, Republicans will turn off more independents, and they will end up voting Democratic in Novemeber.

Think of Ann Althouse and her vote for Obama (I don't know the exact reason she voted for Obama). Think of thousands of Ann Althouses. It could happen again.

Was the economy not more pressing an issue at his time, or do social issues trump all other issues for the new conservatives?

I think Romney handled the questions today pretty deftly. He gave the same response on the one hand--that it's up to the states--and that he regarded marriage as between a man and a woman. Consistent. Any evidence that Romney's going to foist some personal opinion on anyone?

Any evidence that Obama's going to do anything about his changed opinion?

I think all you high thinking types are missing a salient point, one that I'm sure Zero, as a con law prof takes into account. It is NOT up to the states. Because of that little clause that makes a marriage in 1 state valid in all the others. So it is that the liberal progressives will argue to the supreme court, and eventually, they will win. like a stream carving the Grand Canyon. So the 30 states that have passed doma laws are told tough shit, the queers in Massachusetts have a better lobby, so your votes don't count.

Zero did nothing for equal marriage rights , but you people sure do like clapping him on the back for it...buncha dummies.

And PP funding takes money from MY pocket to kill children. Me, who with my wife, talked my stepson from making his wife abort another mans child, because it's murdering a baby.

Abortion is evil, in every shape and form, and that a nurse would condone it makes me question her humanity.

Carnifex, I don't condone abortion! I think life begins at conception, it IS a baby. But I think that it's between the woman and whomever she will have to answer to in the next life. Not us.

I've had four children of my own, I would not encourage any womant to abort her child. We've been through this abortion argument ad nauseum already. I am a nurse and I have had an abused child BURNT by his mother die in my arms.

Lots of people who take a principled stance against same sex marriage are not Mormons. Lots of Mormons with gay family members are struggling with the Mormons stance on same sex marriage. Romney is no more necessarily influenced by his church to be against same sex marriage than any other person who is against it. He has the same reasons millions of people who are not Mormons have. Kennedy's ability to distance himself from the teachings of his church is no better or worse than Romney's ability, but there is no need for Romney to violate his moral principles just to prove he's independent of his church. At least to thinking people there's no need. Harry Reed is a self-described faithful temple attending Mormon and he seems to be fine with same sex marriage at least I've never heard him depart from the liberal Democrat line on this matter.So, Romney is free to oppose or endorse same sex marriage just like any other person of any other religion. Romney's Mormonism is a non-issue on these social discussions. And, even worse these social issues are keeping people from focusing on the three most important things the president should be working on 1. the economy, 2. energy dependence and 3. defense/foreign relations.

I don't condone abortion! I think life begins at conception, it IS a baby. But I think that it's between the woman and whomever she will have to answer to in the next life. Not us.

By this logic, if you hire someone to reach into your car, crush your child's skull, and pull the body out of the window, we can assume that you'd expect society to consider your culpability for murder a matter between you and God? Because, well, though it IS a human life, you're the mother and have the say.